Appeal from a Judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (William Conner, Judge) Refusing to Enjoin Defendant Raymond L. Dirks from Committing Further Violations of Federal Securities Laws. Cross-appeal from a Judgment Finding Defendant Raymond L. Dirks to Have Committed Violations of Federal Securities Laws.

Mansfield, Winter and Pratt, Circuit Judges.

Author: Per Curiam

The appeal and cross-appeal have been taken from certain of Judge Conner's findings of fact and conclusions of law reported at SEC v. Scott, 565 F. Supp. 1513 (S.D.N.Y. 1983).

Judge Conner's finding that there was no reasonable likelihood that Dirks would commit future violations of the antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws is not clearly erroneous. Given that finding, his refusal to enjoin Dirks from committing such violations was entirely proper. See SEC v. Commonwealth Chemical Securities, Inc., 574 F.2d 90, 99-100 (2d Cir. 1978). The judgment on the appeal is therefore affirmed.

Since the findings of fact underlying Judge Conner's conclusion that Dirks violated Section 17(a) of the Securities Act, 15 U.S.C. § 77q(a), Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b), and SEC Rule 10b-5, 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5, are also not clearly erroneous, the judgment on the cross-appeal is affirmed.

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.